frame design-an effort

[freeriding]

hallo everybody!

lots of work done.

what do you think?



6.5 cm of rearward axle disposition (this is why i have a cs length of 396mm)

pedal kickback can be lowered at 16 degrees with a chain cog.

feedback appreciated.

[Pslide]

Looks good to me.

Everyone seems to love their Zerodes, seems like your design works on the same principles.

Is this just a fun exercise for you, or do you have grander plans?

[norbar]

10.5'' shock? Isn't it too progressive?

[freeriding]

it is 267 x 90mm (10.5” x 3.5”) as most dh bike companies use nowadays. it offers more adjustability and higher shock longevity.

it is progressive as it should be, cause of the linear nature of the springs.

in the end the lr regresses to ensure that the shock won't bottom out harshly.

i had many issues to overcome in the design, such as chainstay length, shock-wheel clearance, bb height, rocker arm low pivot-bb clearance, centralized and low centre of gravity.

i have some detailed cad drawings and started also to work on solidworks.

don't know if i can move forward producing it myself, maybe giving it to a company and sell it.

or am i too naive???

[freeriding]

look at the rear axle path.

it is higly rearward giving unsurpassed square bump compliance, it 'eats' everything on its way.

and look how balanced the rear and front axle path is, leading in stability, in balanced geometry all the way of the travel, as the suspension works and wheelbase that is constantly balanced.

high pivot magic!!

[UiUiUiUi]

or am i too naive???

this...
but maybe go ahead and build one for yourself and then see whether it is all you thought it should be... and then go from there...

[freeriding]

could i maybe come in contact with some factory in far east to build one for me?

it that possible? how expensive would it be?

[demo 9]

with that much rearward, you WILL need some sort of pulley or other type of system to avoid ripping the derailleur off. (jedi, zerode, brooklyn)

Look sweet to me, but (and i could be wrong) i think zerode wanted to do a design similar to that, but couldnt because of chain growth, which is why they added the gearbox.

[wiscodh]

could i maybe come in contact with some factory in far east to build one for me?

it that possible? how expensive would it be?

i dont know if you will be able to find a manufacture that will do a one off proto with the possiblity of no production. Might look for a smaller custom builder or somone like zen. If you do find somone, it will be expensive probally around 8-10k for the frame, if you have everything speced out for the builder. Engineering drawings, cad files for the machined parts, tube profiles, ect. If you dont have any of that, your cost will go up. If you got the cash and the want go for it, ride it, learn from it, and have another go at it.

[norbar]

it is 267 x 90mm (10.5” x 3.5”) as most dh bike companies use nowadays. it offers more adjustability and higher shock longevity.

it is progressive as it should be, cause of the linear nature of the springs.

in the end the lr regresses to ensure that the shock won't bottom out harshly.

i had many issues to overcome in the design, such as chainstay length, shock-wheel clearance, bb height, rocker arm low pivot-bb clearance, centralized and low centre of gravity.

i have some detailed cad drawings and started also to work on solidworks.

don't know if i can move forward producing it myself, maybe giving it to a company and sell it.

or am i too naive???

1. It doesn't have to be progressive. I know it's preference but looking at many designs it is very progressive (and they use springs too) Also why it is progressive right after sag point to get linear only later? Unless you want it to run more than 33% sag.

2. It's not regressive at the end. It's progressive.

3. 10.5'' isn't the most common. 9.5'' is the most common. Light riders will have trouble finding springs for the bike. Especially with something like an rc4

[freeriding]

with the pulley as shown, i have a very low pedal kick back, and a chain growth of only 12mm.

so no problem and no gearbox needed.

[freeriding]

1. as you said it is preference. linearity for me suits better with progressivity. mostly dh bikes now choose progressive lr.

2. yeap, english is not my native language, especially technical terms.

3. i know, but i believe that 10.5'' is the best suited here. i can adjust it though for an 9.5 spring. preference thingy again.

thank you for the feedback! jeep it up!!!

[demo 9]

with the pulley as shown, i have a very low pedal kick back, and a chain growth of only 12mm.

so no problem and no gearbox needed.

didnt see the pulley

[StyledAirtime]

where'd ya hear that tidbit? Dodzy and rob had Been building gearbox bikes seperatly for a while then got together on a job and decided to pool together creating the first proto after deciding to use the Alfine. Dodgys first gbox bike had a inboard brake and carbon rear end. And rob has had a few gear box trail bikes before Zerode came about. Always gear boxs tho

[norbar]

1. as you said it is preference. linearity for me suits better with progressivity. mostly dh bikes now choose progressive lr.

2. yeap, english is not my native language, especially technical terms.

3. i know, but i believe that 10.5'' is the best suited here. i can adjust it though for an 9.5 spring. preference thingy again.

thank you for the feedback! jeep it up!!!

1. It is not true that most dh bikes are progressive. Not that progressive. Some went a bit more progressive but for example Trek made the carbon session a bit less progressive for it to behave better on the rough tracks. Demo is very linear even if it got a bit progressive in the last iteration. Most plowy bikes are more linear than progressive. My legend is even a bit regressive at the end.

Linear leverage rate is better for the rough but it is also better for shock setup imho. You can easily make the design much much more linear and still have a bike that bottoms out very rarely. Also a linear shock + a fairly linear bike(very few are a total flat line that doesn't change) doesn't mean the bike will be easy to bottom out.

2. 10.5'' is a fad. The benefits in terms of damping control and shock longivety are minimal and basicly you make it a PITA for riders under 160lbs to get a spring. Especially if they decide to go with an rc4 but with that shock you also have a problem with the frame being very progressive (that shock also is quite progressive).



As for selling the project -I doubt the companies would be willing to test it. Especially without a working prototype and after a proper FEA.